IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.39 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vinta Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Pooja Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents/State. Mr. Nikhil Kanwar, Advocate, for respondents No.5 & 7. Mr. Pawan K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): CMP(M) No. 2020 of 202 4 For the reasons set out in the application, delay in filing the petition, which in my considered view has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. The petition be registered. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Review Petition No. 39 of 2025 2. Be registered. 3. By way of present Review Petition filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prayer has been made on behalf of the review petitioner to review the judgment dated 13.05.2024, passed by this Court in CWP No.1075 of 2020, titled as Vinta Devi versus State of H.P. and Others, whereby this Court disposed of the petition with the following direction: “9. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made herein above, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that private respondent No. 7 was more meritorious than the petitioner, and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the School Management Committee, while offering appointment against the post in question to the private respondent No. 7. Hence, present petition fails and dismissed accordingly. Needless to say, aggrieved, if any, on account of issuance of income certificate dated 18.06.2019 in favour of husband of private respondent No. 7, petitioner can always initiate appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law.” 4. I have heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and gone through the record of the case. 5. The grounds raised are nothing but reiteration of the grounds urged before Writ Court. The review jurisdiction is not meant to appreciate and re-appreciate the facts already considered and urged. The review petition cannot be equated with original hearing of 3 the case and finality of the order sought to be reviewed cannot be questioned by opening the entire case. The submission made that the decision suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372, held: “11. .....a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.....” (P.1377) 6. This Court sees no material irregularity manifest in the order, undermining its correctness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Needless to say that the review is not an appeal in disguise, entitling a party to be heard, simply because the party wants decision to be otherwise. 7. Consequently, in view of above, as well as principles laid down in the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013)8 SCC 320 and Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013)2 SCC 1, the present petition is dismissed. 4 Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 23, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)